Atom Bomb On Japan - Page 4

karlos · 10-11-2005, 08:58 AM

Spidge, I did never insulted the british nor I inted to, tell me where I did so. The thread was about atomic bomb, and spread out to the bombing campaign. It was an allied action and decision, so I talked about it.If you feel that each time I talk about allied misbehavior I have to make a list of the Axis crimes to somehow compensate, it can be very exhausting. We all agree about nazis crimes, and they are difficult to compare to any other. You are right our morality is not that of the 40's, but it's the only one we've got.
The whole point of Bombing campaign being or not a war crime, in my opinion, goes around a few questions:
Was it deliberately aimed at civilians? Where those deaths collateral damage or the true objective of the bombs?
Is it justifiable to kill unarmed civilians -by any means- as a legitimate objective in war?
BTW, yes, I'm spanish. Sometimes proud of it, some other not.

Lt. Winters · 04-12-2005, 02:36 AM

I was pretty outraged when I first learnt of the atom bomb I think for sure there would of been diffrent ways of ending the war without killing so many inocent civilians.
Regards.
Lt. Winters

mattgibbs · 09-12-2005, 11:50 PM

The allied bombing with atomic weapons, does anyone know if the assumedly secret files on the planning of this had been released into the public domain?
Regards
MG

jimbotosome · 10-12-2005, 03:27 AM

Quote:

(Colonel Gubbins @ Dec 9 2005, 04:50 PM) [post=42931]The allied bombing with atomic weapons, does anyone know if the assumedly secret files on the planning of this had been released into the public domain?
Regards
MG
[/b]

Geoff (spidge) posted a link to an analysis of the effect of the bomb that is quite detailed and quite fascinating. It is somewhere in this thread I think. Perhaps he can post it again. Its a long article but worth the read.

spidge · 10-12-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

(jimbotosome @ Dec 10 2005, 12:27 PM) [post=42933]

Quote:

(Colonel Gubbins @ Dec 9 2005, 04:50 PM) [post=42931]The allied bombing with atomic weapons, does anyone know if the assumedly secret files on the planning of this had been released into the public domain?
Regards
MG
[/b]

Geoff (spidge) posted a link to an analysis of the effect of the bomb that is quite detailed and quite fascinating. It is somewhere in this thread I think. Perhaps he can post it again. Its a long article but worth the read.
[/b]

Hi Jim,

It was Angie actually and is included below.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm

mattgibbs · 10-12-2005, 03:44 PM

Hi folks
What I meant was, there must have been secret planning about the actual deployment of the weapon, descisions made and suchlike, and I wondered whether that had been released. As to the effects, I think those are pretty self explan.
Regards
MG

jamesicus · 11-12-2005, 12:55 AM

My personal opinion is that a land invasion of Japan would have engendered a blood-bath, for I do believe the civilian population alone would have fought with a fanatical ferocity and universal self-sacrifice. I believe millions of lives would have been lost -- both American and Japanese. My opinions are not based on scholarly or scientific investigation but rather on the examples of Japanese resistance during the battle for Okinawa and my four year interaction with Japanese civilians during my Military tour of duty in Japan.

angie999 · 11-12-2005, 07:36 PM

There were obviously plans in place for actually using the weapon. For instance, a specialist bomber unit had been deployed and a range of probable targets had been selected well in advance. Also, once the Trinity test was completed and Truman had given the go ahead, they knew what they had to do to ship the weapons to Tinian.

It becomes clear from some of the records released in recent years, though, that the estimates of probable casualties had Olympic (the invasion) gone ahead were having an influence on Truman and the Joint Chiefs, to the extent that it might well have been cancelled. This would have left the only options apart from nuclear weapons being blockade and conventional bombing, which by some estimates could have taken two years, or until the Japanese 1946 rice harvest was running out, to effect a surrender. There could have been a large number of civilian deaths from starvation in this case.

jimbotosome · 11-12-2005, 08:30 PM

Quote:

(spidge @ Dec 10 2005, 01:32 AM) [post=42935]
Hi Jim,

It was Angie actually and is included below.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm
[/b]

Whoops! Sorry Ang, I didn't give you your "props". I knew it was one of the Gurus, just didn't remember which one.

04-12-2005, 02:36 AM	#32 (permalink)
Lt. Winters Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 80	I was pretty outraged when I first learnt of the atom bomb I think for sure there would of been diffrent ways of ending the war without killing so many inocent civilians. Regards. Lt. Winters __________________ "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." Joseph Stalin "History shows that there are no invincible armies." Joseph Stalin

09-12-2005, 11:50 PM	#33 (permalink)
mattgibbs Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 141	The allied bombing with atomic weapons, does anyone know if the assumedly secret files on the planning of this had been released into the public domain? Regards MG __________________ The enemy invariably attacks on one of two occasions: 1. When he is ready. 2. When you are not.

10-12-2005, 03:44 PM	#36 (permalink)
mattgibbs Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 141	Hi folks What I meant was, there must have been secret planning about the actual deployment of the weapon, descisions made and suchlike, and I wondered whether that had been released. As to the effects, I think those are pretty self explan. Regards MG __________________ The enemy invariably attacks on one of two occasions: 1. When he is ready. 2. When you are not.

11-12-2005, 07:36 PM	#38 (permalink)
angie999 Very Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: near Bristol, UK Posts: 1,551	There were obviously plans in place for actually using the weapon. For instance, a specialist bomber unit had been deployed and a range of probable targets had been selected well in advance. Also, once the Trinity test was completed and Truman had given the go ahead, they knew what they had to do to ship the weapons to Tinian. It becomes clear from some of the records released in recent years, though, that the estimates of probable casualties had Olympic (the invasion) gone ahead were having an influence on Truman and the Joint Chiefs, to the extent that it might well have been cancelled. This would have left the only options apart from nuclear weapons being blockade and conventional bombing, which by some estimates could have taken two years, or until the Japanese 1946 rice harvest was running out, to effect a surrender. There could have been a large number of civilian deaths from starvation in this case. __________________ Angie "History is lived forward but it is written in retrospect. We know the end before we consider the beginning and we can never wholly recapture what it was like to know the beginning only." C V Wedgewood

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-11-2005, 08:58 AM	#31 (permalink)
karlos Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 19	Spidge, I did never insulted the british nor I inted to, tell me where I did so. The thread was about atomic bomb, and spread out to the bombing campaign. It was an allied action and decision, so I talked about it.If you feel that each time I talk about allied misbehavior I have to make a list of the Axis crimes to somehow compensate, it can be very exhausting. We all agree about nazis crimes, and they are difficult to compare to any other. You are right our morality is not that of the 40's, but it's the only one we've got. The whole point of Bombing campaign being or not a war crime, in my opinion, goes around a few questions: Was it deliberately aimed at civilians? Where those deaths collateral damage or the true objective of the bombs? Is it justifiable to kill unarmed civilians -by any means- as a legitimate objective in war? BTW, yes, I'm spanish. Sometimes proud of it, some other not.

11-12-2005, 12:55 AM	#37 (permalink)
jamesicus Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 285	My personal opinion is that a land invasion of Japan would have engendered a blood-bath, for I do believe the civilian population alone would have fought with a fanatical ferocity and universal self-sacrifice. I believe millions of lives would have been lost -- both American and Japanese. My opinions are not based on scholarly or scientific investigation but rather on the examples of Japanese resistance during the battle for Okinawa and my four year interaction with Japanese civilians during my Military tour of duty in Japan.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Atom Bomb scientist dies	Peter Clare	World War II News Articles	2	30-04-2007 08:41 PM
Will the whistling bomb hit me?	Peter Clare	General	1	20-09-2006 12:58 PM
617 squadron dambusters	sgt mason	The War In The Air	7	06-08-2006 08:28 PM
Japan Pm Apologises Over World War Two Dutch Pows	Wise1	The Barracks	6	04-05-2005 06:23 PM
Enola Gay Pilot Fights Bomb Backlash	SSGMike.Ivy	General	9	28-03-2005 01:03 AM